Brett Kavanaugh and Apple Anti-Trust

[Jonathan_Chance]

Color me surprised but something I wouldn’t have expected to ever read is

in a majority opinion written by Justice Brett Kavanaugh and joined by the court’s liberal bloc

It’s an interesting case, and one that potentially could overturn a great deal of our existing software sales models. I can’t blame Apple for fighting it as hard as they can, even if I find a lot of their reasoning nonsense.

But the idea that Brett Kavanaugh has anti-business tendencies seems unusual. People have depths. It’s all preliminary, of course, in that the ruling is just to allow the case to move forward, but it’s still an interesting example that people - no people - are all of one kind or the other.

[puzzlegal]

Yeah, I was surprised to read that, too. Curious to see how he develops as a justice.

[Bone]

@Jonathan_Chance

Color me surprised but something I wouldn’t have expected to ever read is

It’s an interesting case, and one that potentially could overturn a great deal of our existing software sales models. I can’t blame Apple for fighting it as hard as they can, even if I find a lot of their reasoning nonsense.

But the idea that Brett Kavanaugh has anti-business tendencies seems unusual. People have depths. It’s all preliminary, of course, in that the ruling is just to allow the case to move forward, but it’s still an interesting example that people - no people - are all of one kind or the other.

As you say, it’s just a ruling to let the case proceed on the merits. I think if Apple didn’t’ restrict app purchases to the Apple App store, but everything else was the same, then this ruling would have gone the other way. But because Apple effectively tells consumers they can only buy from them, the markup arrangement they have doesn’t seem like enough to insulate Apple from the proximate cause consideration of monopolistic behavior.

[Icarus]

@Jonathan_Chance

But the idea that Brett Kavanaugh has anti-business tendencies seems unusual.

In my simplistic lay-man’s view, perhaps he is siding with the free market, rather than one individual business? I know it is easy to see the Right usually side with a corporation against the consumers, but on principal where would they be expected to come down in a decision between the “free market” vs. an individual corporation?

[aldiboronti]

I think it serves to show that Justices aren’t the one-dimensional caricatures they’re sometimes depicted as. They can all surprise us at times, which is as it should be.

[Jonathan_Chance]

@Icarus

In my simplistic lay-man’s view, perhaps he is siding with the free market, rather than one individual business? I know it is easy to see the Right usually side with a corporation against the consumers, but on principal where would they be expected to come down in a decision between the “free market” vs. an individual corporation?

Yeah, I don’t disagree.

But of all the justices I would think would break with the rest of the conservatives I wouldn’t have put him at the top of the list. It’ll be interesting as hell to see if he remains consistent.

[Bone]

But it’s not a ruling that should be characterized as pro market or not. This is about the precedent of private actors bringing suit in anti trust claims, and who has standing to bring suit. I see it more as a statutory interpretation case than anything else. For a case first raised in 2011, now at SCOTUS, this isn’t even being addressed on the merits - it has a long way to go.